R. R. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) A synopsis presented by the Bar Association of Morbi to this high Court has been treated as an application for Criminal Contempt against the respondents as they have made allegations, in judicial proceedings, against the learned civil Judge (S. D.), Morbi and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malia. On perusal, prima facie, it transpired that respondents attempted to scandalise Court and, therefore, suo motu action had been initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of convenience and brevity ). ( 2 ) IN this matter, in all there are 12 respondents. Initially, when the matter was placed for first orders, while admitting notice was also issued against some of the respondents, who, in response thereof, appeared through their respective advocates and filed affidavit-in-reply. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the nature of allegations made against the judicial officer, it will be worthwhile to have a look at the past litigation wherein one of the respondents, viz. , respondent No. 1, Pravinkumar Shamjibhai Patel, was involved. Respondent No. 1 is the husband of Vinaybala, daughter of Harjibhai Merja. Respondent No. 2 is the brother-in-law of respondent No. 1, that is, husband of sister of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 is the wife of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4 is an Advocate practising at Rajkot whereas respondent No. 5 is the father of respondent No. 1 and father-in-law of respondent No. 2. Respondent nos. 6, 7, 9 and 12 are residents of the locality where respondent No. 2 is residing whereas respondent No. 8 is a peon working in Consumer Protection Council, rajkot. As stated in the beginning, that there are 12 respondents as shown in cause title but in fact there are 10 respondents only as names of two respondents are repeated, i. e. , name of respondent No. 3 is repeated at Sr. No. 10 and that of 9 is repeated at S. No. 11. Therefore, after perusing records and hearing learned advocate and verifying from the persons who were present before the Court, we ordered for deletion of names of respondent Nos. 10 and 11. ( 4 ) WHILE peeping in past proceedings, it would be worthwhile to state that vinaybala Harjibhai Merja initiated several litigations against her husband, respondent no. 1. Therefore, after perusing records and hearing learned advocate and verifying from the persons who were present before the Court, we ordered for deletion of names of respondent Nos. 10 and 11. ( 4 ) WHILE peeping in past proceedings, it would be worthwhile to state that vinaybala Harjibhai Merja initiated several litigations against her husband, respondent no. 1. One of the proceedings initiated was in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Malia under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child. Similarly, she also initiated some proceedings in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Morbi, claiming maintenance under the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malia, after hearing parties, passed appropriate final order for alimony. Similarly, the proceedings initiated by Vinaybala in Civil Court (S. D.), at Morbi also ended to its logical end, directing respondent No. 1 to pay amount of maintenance to Vinaybala and her minor child. In both the Courts, respondent No. 1 was represented and defended by respondent no. 2, a practising Advocate, and a close relation. Since, despite his best efforts, results went against respondent No. 1, it appears that respondent No. 2, in capacity as an Advocate thought it proper to file Review Application against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Morbi and thereby preferred Review application No. 54 of 1995 and in order to fortify his case for review, he also filed affidavits of other respondents. A copy of the Review Application alongwith its Annexures and a synopsis were sent by Bar Association, Morbi to this Court. On perusal of papers of Review Application No. 54 of 1995, it appears that scandalising allegations have been made against the judicial officer involving character assassination of Vinaybala, the original petitioner. ( 5 ) AT this stage, we may state that the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Morbi also forwarded an application in the nature of complaint under Sec. 10 of the Act for taking appropriate action against respondents for having made allegations against him in the judicial proceedings. This fact also having been brought to our notice, the complaint sent by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Morbi with Annexures is also tagged with the synopsis sent by Bar Association, Morbi. The learned Civil Judge (S. D. ). This fact also having been brought to our notice, the complaint sent by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Morbi with Annexures is also tagged with the synopsis sent by Bar Association, Morbi. The learned Civil Judge (S. D. ). , Morbi has also made specific reference to certain paragraphs of the proceedings wherein allegations have been made against the Judge concerned. ( 6 ) ON perusal of papers placed before this Court, we feel that the allegations and imputations can be divided into two classes : (i) against the Judge concerned and (ii) against Vinaybala in the nature of character assassination. We may make it clear that while trying this matter under the Contempt of Courts Act, we are not very much concerned with the allegations made against Vinaybala more particularly regarding her character assassination. Allegations in the nature of character assassination against Vinaybala may be an independent ground for initiating some actions, if permissible under law. However, we are mainly concerned with the allegations and imputations made against the learned Judge. Of course, the pleadings are very lengthy and in Gujarati and, therefore, it will be difficult for us to reproduce in verbatim. However, attempt is made to reproduce the substance thereof as under : (i) In the main Review Application No. 54 of 1995 which is duly signed by respondent No. 1, in later part of para 2, imputations are made against the judge concerned for having demanded Rs. 10,000. 00 for showing way to get rid of the orders passed by him. As stated above, in order to forfity contentions raised in the Review Application, respondent No. 2 has also obtained affidavits of some other persons and produced the same in Court. At the outset we may state that in all the affidavits, the deponents have made allegations either against the Judge concerned or against vinaybala. However, we shall deal with only those allegations which are concerning the Judge concerned. (ii) Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in support of Review Application. In para 4 of this petition also, respondent No. 2 has reiterated the imputations and allegations that the learned Judge demanded Rs. 10,000. 00 for showing way to neutralise the orders passed by him. A freehand translation is given hereunder :". . . . . . . . FRIEND, I have passed order in favour of Vinaybala to the tune of rs. 2,750/ -. 10,000. 00 for showing way to neutralise the orders passed by him. A freehand translation is given hereunder :". . . . . . . . FRIEND, I have passed order in favour of Vinaybala to the tune of rs. 2,750/ -. For doing so, I have been paid Rs. 10,000. 00 and if you pay rs. 10,000/- I will show you solution to get rid of this order. . . . . . . "in later part of para 6, respondent No. 2 has also stated that many times Vinaybala sexually submitted to him and at that time she had disclosed several secret facts involving dignitaries and as he is in know of these facts he will not hesitate to disclose on affidavit (By dignitary, he means, Judicial Officer ). Respondent No. 5, Shamji Mohan Detroja, father of respondent No. 1 and father-in-law of respondent No. 2, has filed affidavit (page 12 ). In later part of para 4 of the affidavit, he has stated that the learned Magistrate passed order in favour of Vinaybala by accepting Rs. 10,000. 00 and after sexually enjoying her. The freehand translation is given as under :". . . . . . . IN this case also Shri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (learned Judge) has sexually assaulted vinaybala (of course with her consent) and has accepted Rs. 10,000. 00 as illegal gratification for passing this order and has given complete go-bye to all provisions of law. . . . . . . . . . . "affidavit of Smt. Kundanben, W/o. Harjivanbhai Pitroda, is placed on record at page 15. In second part of paragraph 5 of the affidavit, alleging about the character assassination of Vinaybala, she has also stated that many secret informations concerning the Judge concerned were also revealed to her. Affidavit of respondent No. 8 is placed at page 22. While referring to allegations concerning character assassination of said Vinaybala, he has stated that said Vinaybala had also revealed him some secrets relating to the learned Judge concerned. Affidavit of respondent No. 4, Deepak D. Parmar, a practicing lawyer, is produced at page 23. In para 4 of that affidavit allegations are made against the learned Judge about demanding Rs. 10,000. Affidavit of respondent No. 4, Deepak D. Parmar, a practicing lawyer, is produced at page 23. In para 4 of that affidavit allegations are made against the learned Judge about demanding Rs. 10,000. 00 as bribe for showing way to get rid of the order passed by him. The same is reproduced in English as under (freehand translation) :". . . . . . THE learned Judge, addressing Shri Koringa, (respondent No. 2) had stated "friend, I have passed an order for Rs. 2,750. 00 in favour of Vinaybala for which I am paid Rs. Rs. 10,000. 00. If you want to know solution to get rid of it, I may be paid Rs. 10,000. 00. . . . " ( 7 ) NOW, reverting to the date of first hearing, prima facie, on perusal of aforesaid material, we issued Rule against respondents No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 and notices against other respondents. In response to the process, all respondents appeared through their learned Advocates and filed affidavits-in-reply in their defence except respondent no. 12. As respondent No. 12 did not respect notice and appeared in Court, bailable warrant was issued. As despite service of bailable warrant the respondent No. 12 did not appear in Court, therefore, at last, non-bailable warrant was issued and she was brought before this Court in police custody. At the time when respondent No. 12 was brought before this Court, affidavit of most of the respondents had come on record. Therefore, while perusing the affidavits and hearing learned Advocates as well as respondent No. 12 in person who was present in Court, we found that all the affidavits filed in support of the main Review Application were filed at the instance of respondent No. 2 and all the other respondents pleaded ignorance about the contents thereof. In their affidavits-in-reply the respondents had categorically stated that they had signed the affidavits at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is an Advocate and a neighbour and a person of acquaintance since they are residing in the same locality. Practically the defence of all the respondents, except No. 2, is on the same line saying that they are ignorant about the contents of the affidavits filed in support of the Review Application as the same had been filed at the instance of respondent No. 2 only. Practically the defence of all the respondents, except No. 2, is on the same line saying that they are ignorant about the contents of the affidavits filed in support of the Review Application as the same had been filed at the instance of respondent No. 2 only. They had gone to the extent of saying that they had never appeared before any authority for affirming any such affidavit and had simply signed. Respondent No. 2 also in his affidavit-in-reply has fortified this contention and has accepted liability of drafting and preparing the affidavit and making allegations therein. As we have already said the allegations contained in the proceedings are of two classes : (i) against the learned Judge concerned and (ii) against the character of Vinaybala. We have carefully perused the affidavits-in-reply filed by all the respondents and in the affidavits filed by respondents No. 3, 6, 7 and 9, we did not find any allegations against the Judge concerned. Therefore, notices issued against them were discharged at the preliminary hearing only. Respondent No. 12 brought before this Court in police custody was also heard in person. She also reiterated the same thing which has been said by other respondents pleading ignorance of contents of affidavits and holding respondent No. 2 responsible for preparing such type of affidavits and, therefore, notice against respondent No. 12 was also discharged. Since affidavits filed by respondents No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 did contain allegations against the learned Judge, the matter was heard at length on merits on the question of contempt. ( 8 ) A question posed before this Court is whether the allegations and imputations made against the judicial officer fall within the ambit of Contempt of Courts Act. To appreciate this contention, reference deserves to be made to definition of "contempt of Court" as defined in Sec. 2 of the Act. Since suo motu action is initiated for criminal contempt, we are mainly concerned with Sec. 2 (c) only. To appreciate this contention, reference deserves to be made to definition of "contempt of Court" as defined in Sec. 2 of the Act. Since suo motu action is initiated for criminal contempt, we are mainly concerned with Sec. 2 (c) only. Clause (c) of Sec. 2 of the Act defines criminal contempt and it reads as under :" (C) criminal contempt means, the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which - (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. . . "now, reverting to the allegations made by respondents in their respective affidavits, it is crystal-clear that the allegations made by respondent No. 1 in para 2 of the review Application No. 54 of 1995 are clearly in the nature of scandalising and browbeating the Judge. For the sake of repetition, we may once agains repeat the crux of the allegations made by respondent No. 1 in Review Application No. 54 of 1995. ". . . . . . FRIEND, I have passed order to the tune of Rs. 2,750. 00 in favour of Vinaybala by accepting Rs. 10,000. 00. If you pay me Rs. 10,000. 00 I will show you way to get rid of this order. "respondent No. 1 has filed affidavit-in-reply wherein explaining the situation under which he signed the Review Application, he has stated as under :"in all the matters pending before the Courts, between myself and my wife, i. e. , petitioner No. 2, Mr. M. G. Koringa, Advocate, opponent No. 2 here, in this petition who happens to be my brother-in-law, i. e. , husband of my elder sister Jyotsnaben, was engaged by me. I engaged him as he is my brother-in-law as aforesaid. That I am serving in State Bank of Saurashtra, at Bhavnagar which is far away from Malia and Morbi. M. G. Koringa, Advocate, opponent No. 2 here, in this petition who happens to be my brother-in-law, i. e. , husband of my elder sister Jyotsnaben, was engaged by me. I engaged him as he is my brother-in-law as aforesaid. That I am serving in State Bank of Saurashtra, at Bhavnagar which is far away from Malia and Morbi. I further humbly submit that being an employee of a nationalised Bank and I do not have legal background hence I am totally unaware of procedural law and as such I had to rely on the advice of Mr. M. G. Koringa, advocate, who is in the legal profession for about 10 years. In all the proceedings between myself and my wife I had reposed complete faith on my Advocate Mr. Koringa as I have very high respect for the legal profession and I had no reasons to doubt the integrity of Mr. M. G. Koringa due to our family relations and as such whenever and wherever any written submissions were required to be made before any judicial authority, Mr. M. G. Koringa, Advocate, used to keep the draft submissions ready and i used to append my signature without going through and understanding the import of the contents of the draft submissions. In good faith and under the belief that Mr. M. G. Koringa being the husband of my elder sister Jyotsnaben, will not act in a manner which might be detrimental to my interest I had full trust and faith in my Advocate mr. M. G. Koringa and because of our close relations, I was under the impression that mr. M. G. Koringa will protect my interest and faithfully represent my case very fairly. Moreover, whenever the occasions of appending my signature arose, I had to reach either to Malia or Morbi, on a date fixed by the Honble Court and as such I had very little time to read and understand the draft-submissions so prepared by Mr. Koringa. Besides whenever I requested Mr. Koringa to give me time to read and understand the contents of the draft-submissions, Mr. Koringa always used to assure me that no one would protect my interest better than him because of the family ties. In addition to this I submit that Mr. Koringa. Besides whenever I requested Mr. Koringa to give me time to read and understand the contents of the draft-submissions, Mr. Koringa always used to assure me that no one would protect my interest better than him because of the family ties. In addition to this I submit that Mr. Koringa had an upper hand being the husband of my elder sister and hence used to browbeat me whenever I sought any explanation. Under the circumstances faithfully narrated hereinabove, the allegations and insinuations made in review petition No. 54 of 1995 are drafted by Mr. Koringa without my instructions, consent and knowledge and hence I disassociate myself from the contents of the said petition. Inspite of being a signatory to Review application No. 54 of 1995 I most humbly and respectfully aver that though the allegations and insinuations are made without my knowledge, instructions and consent, I cannot escape from the consequences thereof. "from the above averments it becomes crystal-clear that respondent No. 1 has pleaded ignorance about the nature of allegations and has categorically stated that he had signed the application at the instance of respondent No. 2, who happens to be his brother-in-law and trusted person and Advocate and thus he has disassociated himself for having any deliberate intention for making allegations. ( 9 ) IN this background, it would be worthwhile to peruse affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 2 wherein he has admitted and accepted all the liabilities, acts and deeds for having drafted various affidavits and for having made allegations against the learned Judge. In the affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 2 he has also stated that the allegations made against the concerned Judge either in the main petition or in the affidavits-in-reply in support thereof are not true and correct and were made only with a view to pressurise the Judge concerned and to procure favourable order. Respondent No. 2 has explained circumstances under which the affidavits were drafted and prepared by him and for the sake of convenience, same is reproduced as under : (emphasis supplied by us)". . . . . . I admit that the deponents of these different affidavits are innocent persons and they never instructed me to draft the said affidavits. The contents of the said affidavits are imaginary from my mind. The review application No. 54 of 1995 is also drafted by me without the instructions of Mr. . . . . . I admit that the deponents of these different affidavits are innocent persons and they never instructed me to draft the said affidavits. The contents of the said affidavits are imaginary from my mind. The review application No. 54 of 1995 is also drafted by me without the instructions of Mr. Pravinkumar S. Patel, the respondent no. 1 of the present petition. The respondent No. 1 is a brother of my wife and the respondent No. 3 jyotsnaben is my wife and the respondent No. 5 is my father-in-law and Nos. 6, 7 and 9 my neighbours. The respondent No. 1 married the petitioner No. 2 and because of some reasons they started to live separately and consequently the petitioner No. 2 filed an application under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent No. 1 for maintenance in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) cum Magistrate first Class at Maliya. The Honble Court passed an order in favour of the petitioner no. 2. Thereafter the petitioner No. 2 filed another litigation for maintenance in the court of Civil Judge (S. D. ). , at Morbi. The Honble Court granted the application for interim relief by passing an interim order for maintenance in favour of petitioner No. 2 against the respondent No. 1. I being a brother-in-law cum Advocate of the respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the order passed by the Honble Court and hence i wanted to teach a lesson to the petitioner No. 2 and hence I drafted aforesaid affidavits and review application without instructions and obtained the signature of the concerned person without their knowledge and consent and I filed the same before the Court. The sole object behind all these misdeeds was to deprive the petitioner No. 2 from maintenance and to teach her a lesson and to pressurise her to compromise with the respondent No. 1". (emphasis supplied by us ). As regards the affidavit filed by Mr. Dipakkumar D. Parmar, respondent No. 4, respondent No. 2 has stated as under :". . . . . . . MR. Dipak D. Parmar and Mr. Dilip Gangani are the two Advocates who are practicing at Rajkot and they are my friends at Bar. Mr. (emphasis supplied by us ). As regards the affidavit filed by Mr. Dipakkumar D. Parmar, respondent No. 4, respondent No. 2 has stated as under :". . . . . . . MR. Dipak D. Parmar and Mr. Dilip Gangani are the two Advocates who are practicing at Rajkot and they are my friends at Bar. Mr. Dipak Parmar, Advocate used to sit with me in the Bar room at Rajkot and therefore, when on one occasion he was hurriedly rushing towards the Court Room to attend his matter, I requested him to sign the affidavits drafted by me and Mr. Dipak D. Parmar, Advocate in good faith signed the papers submitted by me without reading the same as such they are and were unknown of the contents as he had full faith in me. " ( 10 ) SIMILAR statement has also been made by respondent No. 2 in connection with affidavits in support of Review Application duly sworn in by other respondents. Thus, on combined reading of affidavits-in-reply of respondents No. 1 and 2, it becomes as clear as day-light that the allegations made against the learned Judge are not true, they are false and fabricated and a product of fertile mind of respondent No. 2. None of the respondents were aware of the nature of allegations and contents of affidavits. Respondent No. 2 has now been fair enough to state that the only object was that he being a brother-in-law of respondent No. 1, felt aggrieved and, therefore, wanted to teach lesson to the petitioner No. 2, Vinaybala, and by making such allegations and imputations, wanted her to surrender for compromise in the matters. On a plain reading of this explanation, as a man of common prudence, only one meaning can be given and that is the ulterior motive for scandalising the Court and an attempt for pressurising the judicial officer to obtain favourable orders. If this is done, in our view it is a clear-cut case of criminal contempt as the case squarely falls within the ambit of definition of criminal contempt as per Sec. 2 (c) (i) of the Act. (emphasis supplied by us) ( 11 ) RESPONDENT No. 4, Dipakkumar D. Parmar, an Advocate and friend of respondent No. 2, has also filed affidavit-in-reply and has explained the circumstances under which the affidavit in main proceedings came to be filed. (emphasis supplied by us) ( 11 ) RESPONDENT No. 4, Dipakkumar D. Parmar, an Advocate and friend of respondent No. 2, has also filed affidavit-in-reply and has explained the circumstances under which the affidavit in main proceedings came to be filed. After narrating the relations with respondent No. 2, he has stated as under :". . . . . . . I say and submit that in the month of last September 1995, Advocate Mr. M. G. Koringa took me into confidence and obtained my signature on one draft. At that relevant time I was in hurry to rush to the Court as my matter was called out, I could (sic) could not go through the contents but on my query he explained me that he has drafted a resolution to be submitted before the authority and keeping faith in advocate Mr. Koringa, I signed the document. I believe that I should have gone through the contents of the said document and should not have put blind faith in advocate Mr. Koringa. "respondent No. 4 Mr. Parmar, is a practicing lawyer. In the affidavit filed by him, in Review proceedings also his profession is described as advocacy. In the affidavit, the allegations are against the Judge concerned for having demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 from Mr. Koringa. These allegations are made in para 4 of the affidavit and in the preceding para 3, he has described the circumstances which established his presence in the Court. Now, in the affidavit-in-reply when he says that putting faith on Mr. Koringa he had signed the affidavit without going through it, since respondent No. 4 is an Advocate, we put a question to ourselves that whether such an explanation is palatable ? Whether a document bearing title describing names of parties, Court, year of institution of proceedings, etc. , would an Advocate treat it as merely a resolution as explained by him ? In ordinary course and in case of an ordinary litigant, the answer may be in positive and the explanation given by mr. Parmar may be palatable. But in this case, when respondent No. 4 is a practicing lawyer, the answer is in negative. No Advocate would sign a paper or a document running into four pages treating a mere resolution though it bears title, name of court and reference to the institution of the proceedings, etc. Parmar may be palatable. But in this case, when respondent No. 4 is a practicing lawyer, the answer is in negative. No Advocate would sign a paper or a document running into four pages treating a mere resolution though it bears title, name of court and reference to the institution of the proceedings, etc. The explanation of respondent No. 4 ostensibly looks very innocent but on the face of it and in the background of the fact that he is an Advocate and qualified person and an officer of Court, does not appear to be palatable. As it has come on record that as an advocate he is close associate of repondent No. 2, Mr. Koringa, and it can be presumed that respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4 must be having day-to-day formal discussion in connection with their own matters and progress thereof, including judgments and orders, Mr. Parmar, being a close associate of Mr. Koringa, shall be deemed to be in know of the result of proceedings in which respondent no. 2 was appearing. Respondent No. 4 shall also be deemed to be in know that by such orders, the ego of respondent No. 2 is hurt and by hook or crook he wants to teach lesson to petitioner No. 2, Vinaybala, and therefore, in order to save skin of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 4 also must have co-operated and assisted in achieving object and in this background tried to malign the judicial officer as well as the petitioner before that Court and, therefore, his explanation pleading ignorance can only be accepted for merely being rejected, more particularly, when in his affidavit he has nowhere stated that after signing the affidavit he did not appear before the appropriate authority for affirmation. Had it been a case as pleaded by respondent No. 2 and as explained by respondent No. 4, nothing prevented respondent no. 4 from saying in his affidavit-in-reply that after signing he never appeared before the authority for swearing in the affidavit. This leads us to draw an inference that the affidavit was signed by respondent No. 4 with full knowledge, notice and information and was also sworn in before the appropriate authority. A judicial note can be taken that while administering oath, the authority concerned does ask about the contents of the affidavit and the deponent is required to admit it. This leads us to draw an inference that the affidavit was signed by respondent No. 4 with full knowledge, notice and information and was also sworn in before the appropriate authority. A judicial note can be taken that while administering oath, the authority concerned does ask about the contents of the affidavit and the deponent is required to admit it. In absence of any categorical statement in this respect, respondent No. 4 shall be deemed to have affirmed the affidavit before the appropriate authority after having admitted the contents thereof. This is nothing else but a live example of having full knowledge about the contents and the nature of allegations contained in that affidavit and, therefore, cannot be presumed to be as innocent as is pleaded in the affidavit-inreply and, therefore, squarely fails within the ambit of criminal contempt as stated above. ( 12 ) NOW coming to the affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 5, father of respondent No. 1 and father-in-law of respondent No. 2, innocence is sought to be canvassed as regards the contents of the affidavit filed in Review proceedings. It is needless to say that respondent No. 5 has in terms admitted filing of that affidavit in Review proceedings but has sought to clarify that respondent No. 2 being his son-in-law, he had full faith, and has scribed his signature at his instance. In the affidavit filed in the trial Court, in the Review proceedings, respondent No. 5 has also referred to various proceedings between the parties, i. e. , respondent No. 1 and Vinaybala and the orders passed therein and has also made allegations against the Judge concerned and involving character assassination of his own daughter-inlaw. Of course, nothing is on record but it is sought to be advanced in oral submissions that respondent No. 5 is not in good terms with respondent No. 1 as respondent no. 1 alongwith his wife had already filed an application under Sec. 125 of Criminal procedure Code and appropriate orders had already been passed in her favour. If that be so a question arise as to whether a person one who is not in good terms, as is sought to be advanced in oral submissions, would ever file any affidavit to fortify the case of the such person ? The answer would be "no". If that be so a question arise as to whether a person one who is not in good terms, as is sought to be advanced in oral submissions, would ever file any affidavit to fortify the case of the such person ? The answer would be "no". It cannot be said that while signing this affidavit, respondent No. 5 was not in know that it pertains to a Court matter, especially when the affidavit bears names of the parties, complete title, nature of proceedings and the Court in which it is sought to be filed. Even as a man of common prudence, a person, at the outset would pose a question as to why his signature is obtained on a paper/document wherein he is not a party and sought to be produced in Court. It is not the case of respondent No. 5 that any proceedings were pending between respondent No. 1 and him and in that case for filing any application or reply his signature was obtained. In fact the proceedings pending were between respondent No. 1 and Vinaybala and, therefore, his innocence and ignorance as pleaded is of no avail and cannot be accepted in such contempt proceedings. In the original affidavit filed in Review proceedings he has made categorical imputations against the Judge concerned for having accepted rs. 10,000/- as bribe for passing orders in favour of Vinaybala. Not only this, he has also made allegations that the said learned Judge also had sexual relations with the lady, Vinaybala and the only consideration for doing so was to pass orders in her favour. Now, if we take the explanation tendered by respondent No. 5 in affidavit-in-reply at its face value, in light of reply of respondent No. 2, then it is crystal-clear that the allegations are fabricated and without any basis. If it is so, then the only inference which can be drawn is that such allegations are made by respondent No. 5 in his affidavit in support of review proceedings are only with a view to scandalise and pressurise the Court to obtain orders in favour of his son, i. e. respondent No. 1 and, therefore, at this stage, case of respondent No. 5 also squarely falls within the ambit of criminal contempt as defined under the Act. 14. 14. Respondent No. 8, Mahesh M. Boricha, is a peon working with Rajkot district Consumer Protection Council, having its office at 11, Ramnik House, Jubilee chowk, Rajkot. In his affidavit-in-reply, he does admit about having signed a document at the instance of respondent No. 2. But again, he has pleaded ignorance about the contents thereof as has been pleaded by other respondents. In our opinion, since respondent No. 8 is working with District Consumer Protection Council dealing with legal matters, cannot be presumed to be innocent and ignorant about the consequences of signing any blank document. But, averments made in para 7 of the affidavit-in-reply makes us to ponder about the involvement of respondent No. 8. Alongwith the affidavit-in-reply he has also produced 3 documents, i. e. , (1) his affidavit in Review proceedings, (ii) alleged receipt of payment of Rs. 35,400. 00 to vinaybala and (iii) a deed of divorce. On perusal, it appears that the receipt for payment of maintenance amount as well as deed of divorce is signed by this respondent as a witness. But in para 7 of the affidavit-in-reply he has categorically denied his signature as a witness of these documents. This denial is further fortified by statement of respondent No. 2 in his affidavit wherein it has been stated that no such divorce deed alleged to have been executed on 16-4-1995 between respondent no. 1 and Vinaybala was ever executed by the parties. If this be the case, then we can very well say that taking undue advantage of the acquaintance with respondent no. 8, respondent No. 2 might have forced him to sign affidavit containing allegations against the Judge concerned. The averments denying signature on document which are duly supported by the admission of person who shall be deemed to have done so, creates doubt in the mind of the Court about the intention and object of involvement of respondent No. 8 in making allegations. When, from the record, a doubt is created against respondent No. 8, in our opinion, benefit should be given to respondent No. 8 and cannot be held responsible for committing contempt. When, from the record, a doubt is created against respondent No. 8, in our opinion, benefit should be given to respondent No. 8 and cannot be held responsible for committing contempt. ( 13 ) NOW, having discussed the merits of allegations and the circumstances under which are alleged to have been made, we turn to the defence - as discussed in earlier paragraphs, respondent No. 2 has owned and accepted all the liabilities and has said that the allegations are nothing else but a product of his fertile mind whereas respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 have pleaded ignorance. But we have already said that their explanation is not palatable, not convincing and in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be accepted. Except praying for mercy, no other defence is advanced by any of the respondents. The question of mercy is required to be weighed vis-a-vis the dignity and decorum of the Court. Judiciary, a Court, is an independent wing of administration. Its dignity and decorum has to be maintained and no person much less an Advocate, who is equally an officer of court, should endeavour to belittle or scandalise it for his personal gain. Question of mercy can be considered when on the facts of it, the parties appear to be innocent. But in the given set of facts and discussion already had by us in the above paragraphs, by no stretch of imagination the role of respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 can be viewed as innocent and weighed less than that of respondent No. 2. Respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 either being close relations or close associates, were equally interested to achieve the goal as desired by respondent No. 2 and in doing so they shared to make wild allegations against the learned Judge seized of the matter. This is nothing else but an act and grossest case of scandalising and lowering the authority of Court and, therefore, these respondents deserve to be dealt with deterrently so as to set an example in the society and will help us to send a message that proceedings of any Court cannot be taken for a ride. Be it at any level of judicial hierarchy. Members of subordinate judiciary are working at remote places where they are alone and have to face all odds. Be it from the members of Bar or the litigants. Be it at any level of judicial hierarchy. Members of subordinate judiciary are working at remote places where they are alone and have to face all odds. Be it from the members of Bar or the litigants. Therefore, subordinate judiciary needs protection so that the Courts cannot be scandalised and authority cannot be lowered down and cannot be browbeaten and can act independently. Therefore, in our opinion, respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 are equally responsible for the act and their apology and plea for mercy cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) CASE of respondent No. 2 is very grave and serious for the simple reason that he has taken the Court proceedings for a ride and dared to make admittedly false and frivolous allegations against the Judge with a view to satisfy his personal ego and help his client who incidentally happens to be his close relative. An advocate, who is also an officer of Court, is also a part and parcel of judicial administration and it is his bounden duty to see that the Court acts independently without fear or favour and be not scandalised while administering justice. In this case, knowing full well that though the learned Judge is innocent, has tried to level wild and filthy allegations and imputations including one of illicit relations with the litigant before the Court, as well as for misconduct in the nature of acceptance of bribe. This was done only for personal gain, i. e. , securing favourable result in favour of his client his brother-in-law and that too in a matter relating to maintenance of wife and child of respondent No. 1. It is apparently clear that in order to satisfy his ego, and desire to procure favourable order, respondent No. 2 has played with the character of a judicial officer against whom, according to his own say, no accusing finger could have ever been raised. This is not a lone case of making wild and filthy allegations against a Judge. On perusal of record, it appears that respondent No. 2 is in habit of making such allegations as would be evident from a transfer application being M. C. A. No. 864 of 1993 filed before the District Judge, Rajkot, for transfer of M. C. A. No. 20 of 1991 pending in the Court of learned Judicial magistrate, First Class, Malia and Miyana. This Application No. 20 of 1991 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malia was filed by Vinaybala against respondent No. 1, brother-in-law of respondent No. 2. From the record, it transpires that for the reasons best known to respondent No. 2, on his own, under his signature, moved an application for transfer of that application from the Court of Malia to some other Court and in support of transfer application he also submitted written arguments under his own signature. Normally, transfer application is filed and signed by the party concerned, but in this case, not only it is signed by respondent no. 2 as Advocate but it is also affirmed by him and in the cause title of that application the respondent No. 2 has described himself as the applicant and the learned Judicial Officer as opponent. In the written arguments submitted in support of his transfer application also he made allegations against that learned Magistrate presiding over in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malia. In part 2 of the written arguments, in terms he has stated that the learned Magistrate had soft corners for the petitioner being female, he has favoured the petitioner by the order. He has also stated that the petitioner might have been favoured by Judge concerned for some other reasons which are not conspicuous. What does it indicate ? It reflects upon the conduct of respondent No. 2 that he has scant regards for judiciary, its autonomy and independence and indulged himself in such act only with a view to procure favourable results. The matter does not rest here. Respondent No. 2 in his written arguments in support of transfer application has also gone to the extent of making variety of allegations against the Judge concerned indicating his involvement in malpractice and misconduct. No material is advanced by respondent no. 2 in support of these allegations. Not only this, but ultimately when the matter came for hearing, respondent No. 2 unconditionally withdrew, meaning thereby, that he did not adhere to the allegations and withdrew the same. This leads us to hold that the allegations reflected in written arguments in support of transfer applications were baseless, false and frivolous. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the allegations were made unknowingly or inadvertently. In other words, respondent no. This leads us to hold that the allegations reflected in written arguments in support of transfer applications were baseless, false and frivolous. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the allegations were made unknowingly or inadvertently. In other words, respondent no. 2 is in the habit of making such wild and filthy allegations with a view to scandalise the Court and obtain favourable results. ( 15 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Purohit appearing for respondent No. 2 has requested the Court only to pardon and expect mercy from the Court. But, in such a gross case, no mercy can be shown and the respondents can be exonerated. On this point we are supported by judgment of Supreme Court in the case of J. Vasudevan v. T. R. Dhananjaya, reported in AIR 1995 (6) SCC 249 wherein in para 14 the supreme Court has held as under : "coming to the mercy jurisdiction, let it be first stated that while awarding sentence on a contemner the Court does so to uphold the majesty of law, and not with any idea of vindicating the prestige of the Court or to uphold its dignity. It is really to see that unflinching faith of the people in the Courts remains intact. But, if the order of even the highest Court of the land is allowed to be wilfully disobeyed and a person found guilty of contempt is let off by remitting sentence on plea of mercy, that would send wrong signals to everybody in the country. It has been a sad experience that due regard is not always shown even to the order of the highest Court of the country. Now, if such orders are disobeyed, the effect would be that people would lose faith in the system of administration of justice and would desist from approaching the Court, by spending time, money and energy to fight their legal battle. If in such a situation mercy is shown, the effect would be that people would not knock the door of the Courts to seek justice, but would settle score on the streets, where muscle power and money power would win, and the weak and the meek would suffer. That would be a death-knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow. That would be a death-knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow. The Court cannot be a party to it and, harsh though it may look, it is duty-bound to award proper punishment to uphold the rule of law, how so high a person may be. It may be stated, though it is trite, that nobody is above the law. The fact that the petitioner is an I. A. S. Officer is of no consequence, so far as the sentence is concerned. We would indeed think that if a high officer indulges in an act of contempt, he deserves to be punished more rigorously, so that nobody would take to his head to violate the Courts order. May we also say that a public officer, being a part of the Government, owes higher obligation than an ordinary citizen to advance the cause of public interest, which requires maintenance of rule of law, to protect which contemners are punished. " ( 16 ) IN this view of fact, we do not accept the plea for showing mercy qua of any of the respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5. ( 17 ) ON the question of sentence, Mr. A. J. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 has submitted that he is a bank employee and in the event of sentence being passed against him, will lose his job and the entire family would be ruined as he is the only bread-earner in the family. He has also submitted that in the event of losing employment, the petitioner Vinaybala also would not get maintenance and thus would also be facing monetary crisis and, therefore, requests for taking liberal view for imposing fine only. He has also requested for taking similar liberal view for respondents No. 4 and 5 more particularly when respondent No. 4 is a junior Advocate and respondent No. 5 is an aged person. But, we are of the opinion that this being a unique and grossest case of deliberate and wilful act of contempt, deterrent view deserves to be taken. As regards respondent No. 2 is concerned, Mr. Purohit, learned Advocate, has submitted that 15 days sentence coupled with fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 would suffice the purpose. But, we are of the opinion that this being a unique and grossest case of deliberate and wilful act of contempt, deterrent view deserves to be taken. As regards respondent No. 2 is concerned, Mr. Purohit, learned Advocate, has submitted that 15 days sentence coupled with fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 would suffice the purpose. But, as discussed hereinabove, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the involvement of respondent No. 2 in the case, we are not able to convince ourselves for taking a liberal view, as suggested. ( 18 ) IN the result, we pass the following order :the application is partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 8, Mahesh M. Boricha, is exonerated. Rule is discharged and proceedings against him are dropped. Respondent No. 1, Pravinkumar Shamjibhai Patel, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for two weeks. Respondent No. 2, M. G. Koringa, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for two weeks. Respondent No. 4, Deepak D. Parmar, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for two weeks. Respondent No. 5, Shamji Mohan Detroja, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one week. Amount of fine is ordered to be paid within one week from today. ( 19 ) AT this stage, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respondents have orally submitted that the respondents desire to prefer appeal in the Supreme Court and have requested for suspension of sentence for a period of six weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby accept their request and suspend implementation of the order for a period of six weeks from today for sentence only. However, respondents are directed to pay the amount of fine as ordered above. Copy of this order be sent to Bar Council of Gujarat for necessary actions, as deemed fit. Rule made absolute accordingly. .